W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2012

Re: aria-describedat

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:38:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3cg80-U6K9kMko64_KZFKsLTBpumsPzNTGw3FV_S51ERg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mike@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>> The name should reflect the fact that it is a URL. e.g.
>> "aria-descriptionurl" or "aria-describeaturl" would be better.
>
> If one were to pick @describedaturl, then why not, just as well, change
> @describedby to @describedBYidrefs ?

I think "descriptionids" would have been better, but I suspect UAs
have to implement "aria-describedby" for compatibility with existing
content.

> I think @describedat is reasonably good - it fits the current naming pattern.

I'd welcome a break from the existing pattern of naming things confusingly.

I don't think minting new names for existing features is prerequisite
for choosing better names for new features.

> Also, the name is probably not the only reason why @longdesc so often has had invalid content:

I didn't say it was. I think we should take especial effort to avoid
contributing factors to @longdesc's poisoning, whether those factors
were minor or major.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 23:38:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:06 UTC